ESS/ITS Parking Lot

OATT NITS on OASIS

(Reconcile this to the concepts document, that the decisions made today are included in the concept documents – 5/6/09)

Table of Contents

Review Paul Sorenson’s PowerPoint document from November 2007

Initial applications requirements and process (evaluation, studies, queuing, status, deposit / queue time)

Designation and undesignation of resources and loads

Forecasts issues

Granularity and timing of information submitted

Transparency for other market participants

Secondary network service issues

e-tag issues

Transmission Providers’ needs including ATC calculating, auditing / tracking, billing integrity

Network Customer needs including understanding of processes and ease of use, confidentiality (masking)

Review Paul Sorenson’s PowerPoint document from November 2007(Completed review of Power Point document)

  1. Review for business needs identification

Initial applications requirements and process (evaluation, studies, queuing, status, deposit / queue time)

  1. Should there be one or more data elements for deposits/credit (amount, date received, form of deposit, etc) or should this be miscellaneous data collected off-OASIS? Does this data need to be on OASIS?(Update 05/06/09 - No specific data elementsare required for identifying customer credit or deposit information.
  2. Inadequate credit is a legitimate reason to decline an application. Need to ensure that the TP can use this reason to decline an application on OASIS. It is not appropriate to display on OASIS a customer’s credit or deposit information or any assessment of that information. Use of STATUS type definition which is broad enough to allow credit denial, (eg, expand definition of INVALID.)
  3. Develop related templates for initial application requirements, including load and DNR templates.
  4. Should the Network Customer beable to request ancillary services? Yes, and develop related templates – similar to PTP.
  5. Change “NITS Initial Application” to “NITS Application”. (Already discussed. This is just a reminder to do it.)
  6. Is there a need for development of OASIS business practice standards and OASIS S&CPs to set forth the “treatment of OASIS requests when the customer fails to provide the necessary attestation,” when submitting an initial application for network service? No, FERC has addressed this issue. Possibility for use of check box for notification of sent status.
  7. Registration - does it require a TSIN identity? It is a requirement per WEQ-001- 3.1.
  8. Do we need to make provisions in TSIN for customers who do not have a DUNS number? (Allow use of representative for the submittal of the application and for small customers to be registered on TSIN.) (Need to identify the concern for small customers to be registered on TSIN and pass this issue on JISWG.) Should all network transmission service be on OASIS? Answer is yes. Is there a need for an exception? Answer is no.
  9. Will need to conduct a review of TSIN to identify any changes that would affect our standard before we send it out. This issue will be passed on to JISWG.
  10. Develop templates for network transmission service business practice standards.)

Designation and undesignation of resources and loads

  1. Ability to auto fill information from existing designated resources to alternate path (Same DNR data record but delivered over a different contract path – may or may not be delivered at the same POR or POD to the Sink Control Area) – as discussed 06/03/09
  2. The ability to designate more resources than transmission capability committed to that service over a path (i.e. the sum of MWs designated exceeds the transmission reserved). Also the ability to restrict total of all schedules to the transmission reserved. – as discussed 06/03/09
  3. The ability to show on OASIS the transmission reserved firm and non-firm by path to accommodate both designated and non-designated resources. – as discussed 06/03/09
  4. Consider establishing a mechanism for defining generation resources so they can be referenced in a designation (max capacity, min capacity, operating cost, etc). This item has been resolved per Motion 22 also considered in #1 above (12/04/08). – as discussed 06/03/09
  5. Should there be a mechanism to bind / tie off-system point-to-point reservations to a network reservation? Item 5 moved to 2009 Annual Plan Item 2(a)iii. – as discussed 06/03/09
  6. If the Firm point-to-point reservations are required on other transmission systems as a condition for granting a DNR, then should the PTP capacity be held exclusively for use with the DNR? If the capacity is reduced on one of the Firm PTP reservations due to a firm redirect, should the network reservation (DNR) capacity be reduced?
  7. Should there be a mechanism in conjunction with NITS on OASIS tofacilitate the coordination of requests across multiple transmission systems [WEQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 2(a)(v)(1)] and re-bid of partial service across multiple Transmission Providers’ systems [WEQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 2(a)(v)(2)]? See customer response to Item #5 of Network Customer needs. If not developed in conjunction with NITS on OASIS, should this team develop information for the Parking Lots of these two Annual Plan Items?
  8. Make sure that undesignation process does not permit termination or reduction of point-to-point reservation capacity (relinquish, annul, recall). Should a Transmission Provider’s batching process prohibit a request for this action? Answer is yes, details need to be worked out. – as discussed 06/03/09
  9. Network Customer Need: The ability to do undesignation in shorter time increments than the minimum designation time increment. The minimum term for designation will be the same minimum increment offered by the Transmission Provider for firm point to point. For example, if designations must be done with a minimum increment of a day, permit undesignation in hourly increments. Completed 12/04/08. – as discussed 06/03/09
  10. Do we need to define “Load” and “Point of Delivery”? If so, what would the definition be?– “Point of Delivery” and “Network Load” are defined in the pro forma tariff. Request NAESB direction on the need for these definitions in the NAESB standards given their inclusion in the pro forma.– as discussed 06/03/09
  11. We would need to be careful of the usage of these terms to ensure consistency with the OATT definitions.

Network Load – Definition from pro forma

The load that a Network Customer designates for Network Integration Transmission Service under Part III of the Tariff. The Network Customer's Network Load shall include all load served by the output of any Network Resources designated by the Network Customer. A Network Customer may elect to designate less than its total load as Network Load but may not designate only part of the load at a discrete Point of Delivery. Where a Eligible Customer has elected not to designate a particular load at discrete points of delivery as Network Load, the Eligible Customer is responsible for making separate arrangements under Part II of the Tariff for any Point-To-Point Transmission Service that may be necessary for such non-designated load.

Point(s) of Delivery – Definition from pro forma

Point(s) on the Transmission Provider's Transmission System where capacity and energy transmitted by the Transmission Provider will be made available to the Receiving Party under Part II of the Tariff. The Point(s) of Delivery shall be specified in the Service Agreement for Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service.

  1. Request for DNR’s – ensure includes attestation. Extensive discussions to date. Will be included.– as discussed 06/03/09
  2. There will be a data element for the attestation in the DNR request that will need to be completed to be part of a completed request consistent with NAESB business practice standards and specific wording as included in the pro forma OATT per Order 890, 1532.). Will be included and related applications will be developed.– as discussed 06/03/09

Forecasts issues

  1. Resource forecast and DNRs don’t necessarily match in the future. Is this an issue for NAESB or NERC? (Rollover Rights -how do you align the planning with ATC calculations and rollover rights?) Could be included as an ETC item. We agree that forecast issues need to be addressed. We will need a rollover-like template for DNRs. – as discussed 06/03/09

Granularity and timing of information submitted

  1. Is there a need to create a business practice to define when an application becomes a completed application. Not required, as discussed on 06/03/09.
  2. There will be a data element/status field on OASIS but we do not need a business practice as the completed application is defined in the Tariff and by the transmission provider
  3. There needs to be a way to time stamp requests for transmission service (e.g. DNR) so they can be queued properly to be in competition with point-to-point. Yes NAESB will require some type of time stamp. – as discussed 06/03/09
  4. When creating networkservice standards, clarify the meaning of “day” e.g. business day or calendar day. Suggestion for straw poll. When we mean business day we state specifically business day without defining it. We use calendar day in instances where we specifically mean calendar day, without additional definition. Use of the generic term day is permitted in order to accommodate regional flexibility. Approved by straw poll on 6/17/09.
  5. Is it already defined in the NAESB standards? Not defined.
  6. Data elements for response times? Yes, anytime a customer response is required. There will be multiple response time fields (e.g. remedy deficiency time limit, confirmation time limit).
  7. Review timing table for transmission provider/customer response times to transactions. For application the provisions in the OATT will prevail. For individual DNRs

The following will reflect the time limits, however the exact terminology may change once we start writing standards.

This table is to be used only for modifications to existing service.

Class ? name will probably change / Duration
Of the transmission allocation not of the NITSA / Time Queued Prior to Start
(When the request is queued within this timeframe the following evaluation and confirmation time limits apply) / Provider Evaluation Time Limit / Customer Confirmation Time Limit After ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER
Secondary Network/nondesignated resource/ non-firm network service/non-firm / Hourly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly / < 1 hour
> 1hour
Day ahead
N/A
N/A
N/A / Best effort
30 minutes
30 minutes
30 minutes
4 hours
2 days / 5 minutes
5 minutes
30 minutes
2 hours
24 hours
24 hours
Designation of new network resource/firm / Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly / <24 hours
N/A
N/A
N/A
60 days / Best effort
30 days
30 days
30 days
30 days / 2 hours
24 hours
48 hours
4 days
15 days

Transparency for other market participants

  1. We need to have discussion on preemption and competition. Tie to duration of NITS rather than DNR. See WEQ-001 Table 4-3. DNRs of all durationsare considered to be Tier 1 Network Firm. Define system attributes for duration of DNRs. Delay any changes to pre-emption until the Annual Plan topic is undertaken.

Two options for drafting the standard: 1.) new standard sets for consistent methods for submittal of DNRs/DNLs and the associated transmission service for all TPs or 2.) new standard is developed with inherent flexibility to accommodate existing variations in practices currently associated with making requests for new DNRs/DNLs (not a new application) and associated transmission service.

  1. We need to have discussion on the posting of NITS capacity being “held” as an ETC in the ATC calculation.
  • Treatment of rollover rights
  • Do all DNRs related requests have rollovers, e.g. daily?
  • Document existing network transmission allocations or only future requests for allocation?
  • NSR treatment?
  • Should there two separate requests/postings: one for NSR and one for the DNR? How are they linked? Can we link existing NSRs to future DNRs?
  • How would this differ from posting the application?
  • How should the request be viewed on OASIS?
  • Should network capacity information for ETC purposes be posted similar to posting of information for PtP
  1. Ensure meet requirements of FERC Order 890, et.al. with regards to the list of current DNRs and the information required to be on that list (e.g. geographic location, electrical location). Refer to naming conventions document section on geographical and electrical locations.

Secondary network service issues

  1. Mechanism for termination of secondary network transmission capacity if it is not going to be used by the Network Customer (i.e., will not be scheduled) so that non-firm ATC may reflect the change. Relinquish type ability to release all or part of a secondary network transaction.

e-tag issues

  1. Does NAESB need to address tag processing issues?
  • OASIS NSR data is compatible with tag data so that unreserved use can be determined by the TP (e.g. source control area).
  1. Review tag changes for DNR associated with scheduling agents – what kind of tag changes need to happen? See item #2 under Network Customer needs.

Transmission Providers’ needs including ATC calculating, auditing / tracking, billing integrity

  1. Want to make sure the queue hoarding and flooding language in the NAESB standards is sufficient to cover network service. Make sure WEQ-001-8 applies to network service request or write a new section that applies to network service request.
  2. If two different technologies (CSV for point to point, and something else for NITS), does this complicate the concomitant evaluation, would it be compatible? 11/14/08 – Subcommittee made the determination to use CSV. Item complete.
  3. Review all point-to-point transaction request types for applicability to NITS, including assignments and transfers.11/13/08 – Item completed.
  4. Review business practices related to rollovers for applicability to NITS.

Is rollover rights applicable to NITS? Yes. Review transfer business practices to ensure network reservations can be transferredso the rollover rights can be transferred. Refer to WEQ-001-12? Make sure that WEQ-001-12 applies to network service requests and DNRs or write a new section that applies to network service.

  1. Should batch submittals be required to be pre-confirmed? Interdependent requests

Should there be a mechanism for a single acceptance and single confirmation by the customer? Yes if it’s technically possible.

If not technically feasible, we need additional business practices to address the treatment of the batched request. For example, once submitted they must be considered concurrently and may not be adjusted individually.

Should we allow for counteroffers on batch requests?

Straw Poll 6/18/09:

1. We will be silent in regards to counteroffering batches. We voted on this and it failed.

2. We will state that counteroffers for batches will be handled in accordance with TP business practices. This won the straw poll.

3. We develop business practices for handling counteroffers that impact batches. We voted on this and it failed.

(should linked reservation requests such as designating or undesignating, and PtP and network service at the same time be required to be preconfirmed) No. as of 6/18/09. We still need to address if and how mixed preconfirmations can be batched in queue priority.

  1. The subcommittee recognizes the distinct differences between organized markets and non-organized market entities where as, processes and procedures may not be applicable to both. May invoke Attachment C. Complete as of 6/18/09.

See work paper submitted by Midwest ISO 7/07/09.

  1. The subcommittee may determine a need to have regional or ATC methodology base differences. We are not ready to make a decision on this. 7/7/09
  2. Continue discussion on sectioning off in the NAESB standard NITS, Point-to-Point, general
  • After reviewing NITS vs. Point-to-Point in WEQ-001, 002, and 013, we’ll make a determination on whether to section of NITS, Point-to-Point and general

We recognize that some aspects will be the same and we’ll differentiate when needed.

  • WEQ-003 will not be rearranged but may have a new section(s) for NITS related items
  • Consensus has been reached that NITS will require separate sections in 001, 002 and 013
  • See WEQ-002 document with subcommittee comments dated 10/29/2008 for one proposal on doing separate sections

7/7/09 agree that we will continue with the concepts outlined here.

Network Customer needs including understanding of processes and ease of use, confidentiality (masking)

  1. There is a need to capture agency arrangements between an authorized agent that may submit network service required information etc. as opposed to the party receiving service i.e. the load or network customer.

Complete as of 7/7/09

  1. Allow both the Network Customer and the authorized agent to submit requests for changes to service and the most recent submittal stands(e.g., undesignated) . Similarly, if the Customer changes agents, permit the new agent to make changes to a request made by the previous agent and also to submit e-tags against reservations made by the previous agent.

Transmission Provider shall restrict OASIS transactions to Network Customer and/or authorized agent.

1.We first need to capture who the network customer is in all of these requests.

2.We also want to provide the option for capturing the agency relationship and allow for transaction on behalf of the network customer. – may want to mask this information.

3.Who submitted the request needs to be captured.

4.Permit an entity who is an agent for multiple customers to specify which customer they are representing when submitting information on OASIS.

The NAESB standards will specify the above 4 functionality requirements required without specifying how that functionality will be accomplished.

We have to be able track who an agent is representing because agents might represent more than one network customer

What is the agent authorized to do?

NAESB standards will not specify any granularity requirements with regards to specific types of transaction requests which an agent may or may not be authorized to submit.

When is the agent authorized to do the authorized actions? There maybe agents for PtP and network and we need to be able to differentiate.

There is 1 start stop time for the agent. – this option lost in the straw poll 7/7/09.

There are 2 start stop times for the agent: transaction start time and authorization start time. – straw poll that this is the option we will move forward with 7/7/09.

Transaction start time example might be Jan. 1, 2010 and the authorization start time could be Sept. 2009 for such transaction.

Will we permit multiple entities to act as an agent? Yes 7/7/09

WEQ-002-4.2.8 – has all of the Registration Information

Could make it permissible for the TP to enter data on behalf of the customer.

NAESB will develop a standard that will require the Transmission Provider to develop a business practice to allow this to happen at the Transmission Provider’s discretion.